Foam test blows hole in wing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июл 2015
- (7 Jul 2003) SHOTLIST
1. Wide pan of carbon-reinforced panel removed from shuttle Atlantis and pressurised gun at test site - men loading foam into gun
2. Countdown and blast
3. Mid shot of Columbia Accident Investigation Board member Scott Hubbard walking towards shuttle
4. Mid shot of man measuring hole
5. SOUNDBITE (English) Scott Hubbard, Columbia Accident Investigation Board:
"The result of getting the data from both of these tests, I believe that we have found the smoking gun. I believe we have established that the foam block (that) fell off of the external tank was in fact the most probable cause, the direct cause of the Columbia accident."
6. Wide shot of hole, zoom in to close up
7. SOUNDBITE (English) Scott Hubbard, Columbia Accident Investigation Board:
(Q: And what did we learn from this. What or can we learn from this?)
"Well, I think our recommendations, the first ones we released say that we need to have better imagery, that the shuttle programme should have the capability to do on orbit inspection and repair, that we need to utilise national assets. To see if there has been any damage we need to realise that this is a vehicle that needs to be looked at very carefully, because each flight, since there has been only 113 of them, is a special flight. Aircraft, even experimental aircraft often go through thousands of flights before they are determined to be operational."
8. Close up of carbon-reinforced panel that was damaged by foam in test
9. Wide shot of hole, zoom in to close up
STORYLINE
A team investigating the Columbia shuttle disaster has moved one step closer to determining what caused the disaster, which claimed the lives of all seven astronauts.
They blew open a gaping two foot (60 centimetre) hole in a shuttle wing after firing a chunk of foam insulation at wing parts on Monday, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed the spaceship.
The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam struck roughly the same spot where insulation that broke off Columbia's big external fuel tank smashed into the wing.
Investigators believe the damage led to the ship's destruction during re-entry over Texas in February.
Monday's test was the seventh and final foam-impact test by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and it yielded by far the most severe damage.
The one point 67 pound (750 grammes) piece of fuel tank foam insulation shot out of a 35-foot (10.6 metres) nitrogen-pressurised gun and slammed into a carbon-reinforced panel removed from shuttle Atlantis.
The countdown boomed through loudspeakers and the crack of the foam coming out at more than 500 miles per hour (805 kilometres per hour) reverberated in the field where the test was conducted.
Twelve high-speed cameras captured the event and hundreds of sensors registered movements, stresses and other conditions.
One month ago, another carbon shuttle wing panel - smaller and farther inboard - was cracked by the impact, in addition to an adjoining seal.
This time, the entire 11 and a half inch (30 centimetres) width of the foam chunk - rather than just a corner during previous tests - hit the wing, putting maximum stress on the suspect area.
Find out more about AP Archive: www.aparchive.com/HowWeWork
Twitter: / ap_archive
Facebook: / aparchives
Instagram: / apnews
You can license this story through AP Archive: www.aparchive.com/metadata/you...
I'm surprised that NASA did not perform tests of this type prior to the Columbia disaster. They knew that foam coming off the tank was a fairly common occurrence. I guess hindsight is 20-20.
Those gasps among the gallery watching says it all! It's sad how an oversight like that during Columbia's final liftoff turned into a very grave error. Just so incredibly tragic and the worst part is this could've all been prevented with better procedures and more careful logic in place.
From nASA: Challenger accident, :( we will change.
2003
NASA: hold my foam 3:), Colombia re-entrys(space walk to check da wing?)nab, let leave it to luck. Burn up in the atmosphere.
NASA: oooops, haha, unlucky.
Also NASA: NOT MY FAULT as Colombia is fated to be the earth BBQ.
Hindsight is 20/20. Normalization of deviance is extremely easy to fall into, and not a single person's fault. Don't treat a collection of people as a single person. Organizations fail.
@@scottgauer7299 Linda ham murdered those 7 astronauts
@@scottgauer7299 Jesus Christ, someone who actually knows what the fuck they are talking about! Thank you. Reading the comments for videos like this is a depressing slog, isn’t it? All contempt and stupidity.
NASA: you think you’re better than me
SPAECEX: I am better than you
I remember when we first found out about the foam there was a representative on TV saying there's no way that lightweight piece of foam caused this accident and I knew right away it did.
Doesn't matter how light something is, getting it moving fast enough and it will do damage.
Hindsight is 20/20, but yeah, that guy pretty much invented the "Wow, that didn't age well" meme.
The big issue is that they had tons of data and had computational models for tiles damage (the program called CRATER) but basically had NOTHING on what impacts would do to the reinforced carbon carbon panels of the leading edge.
They used the incorrect analogy of a foam cooler hitting a car on the interstate. Assuming a speed of the car at 70MPH, the maximum impact speed would be 70MPH (and that assumes that the coolers just stops dead in midair).
The speed of impact of the foam on the Shuttle was around 600-700MPH and it was not a glancing hit.
Rest in peace Columbia. God speed Rick
I remember when this footage first aired on TV and how shocked news teams reporting it seemed to be. Even if this is what people suspected happened, they were still amazed by the confirmation. To suspect a hole was made is one thing, but to see it actually happen while hearing the sound of the impact and seeing the hole was crazy & mind-blowing. I recall my jaw literally dropping and just being freaked out.
What's amazing to me is that despite most of the engineers and scientists having PhDs they ignored a simple equation about kinetic energy that most learned in high school. And that a guy had to create a demonstration (at quite a cost) to convince these apparently intelligent people that they could no longer dismiss the fact that foam which seems intuitively "too light" can kick ass at 500 miles an hour squared. Sadly, people have to die to get these problems fixed; same with Challenger tragedy.
People in organizations are subject to group think and logical fallacies. NASA was no exception. Normalization of deviance was a huge problem in both the Challenger and Columbia disasters.
Show this to the 911 conspiracy theorists, "how can an aluminium aircraft damage a steel structure"
Cruise planes would fall apart at that speed and weight even before hitting anything. Planes hit the buildings, but they were not passenger planes, they were military planes. And no, they did not bring the buildings down, controlled demolition did.
If you believe the official narrative you deserve a vaccine every month.
Yes Lucas sure thing 🤣
what if a space shuttle crashed into the twin towers
@@lightyagmi2010😂👍
🤫👶🏼😴
Conspiracy theorists are all loony.
It's scary how one "relatively" small opening in the heatshield can lead to a catastrophic failure
If you compare Columbia and Apollo 13 the difference in how both incidents were handled by NASA is staggering. Quite frankly the NASA management in charge of the Columbia flight should have been charged with negligence and then jailed. The crew never stood a chance.
Spot on. If Apollo 13 had been handled like Columbia, that crew would be dead.
There's your smoking foam gun
I hated to say I told you so, but I told you so on February 4th, 2003.
To this happened on the first test too.
Just another 16 minutes to landing. 😢
Why the hell where they laughing about this? The glad-handing?
Well, they had been investigating this for a while, and needed to prove to many doubters that the foam piece could actually damage an RCC panel. This test finally proved the idea as entirely possible, and when one can definitively give an answer as to why something like this happened, I imagine it is a very satisfying thing, and a completely natural reaction. It doesn't mean they are celebrating death, or are being insensitive. They've just solved a big problem.
IN a documentary on you tube, the man talking who led the investigation, was laughed at himself by other engineers. They told him there was no way that wing could have a hole blown through it from a piece of foam. The material was so strong, it was a fairytale. Well, a lot of those engineers were there for the test. I'm also sure you could hear the shock and gasp when they watched it happen.
Relief and satisfaction.
These people faced so much resistance trying to prove what happened it was ridiculous. It seems like an inappropriate reaction but you have to put yourself in their shoes.
A lot of people were worried as soon as they saw the strike and certainly once it became clear the orbiter had been lost, many people knew exactly what had happened but between denial, face saving and hubris, many didn't want to see the truth and even mad it difficult for these tests to be carried out.
This was the conclusion of a quest for the truth and in a sense, justice for those who lost their lives which was at least partially the consequence of human error, AGAIN.
@@jamiethornton6101 Calvin Schlomburg, the guy that repeatedly told the flight managers that there was not flight safety issue - was still skeptical about foam causing a hole. Even after this test. Even after the mountain of evidence pointing to the left wing failing first, with sensors failing n shit. He still thought it was something else.
@@DominicciSkycam yeah, he was an idiot. People like him being over part of the shuttle program is why the Challenger and Columbia had deadly results.
What is terrible is that,they did not do shit to protect the wing from "shooting"foam debris,instead,it is on the tank,that protection"nets"could have been used,or deflectors to"drive"those pieces away from the vehicle,anyway,that brick will never fly again.........
The foam hit the wing during launch... There would be no way a net could protect the shuttle at that speed
@@idkhowtoright479 Netting around the external tank was looked into in order to prevent foam coming loose but the net itself could have got damaged and broken loose which would have been a far bigger hazard.
A better solution would have been a faster fuelling process and smaller launch windows which would have taken away the need for the insulation but again, easier said than done and again, potential ice build up could have been even more dangerous.
Familiarity Breeds Contempt
nasa taki błąd parodia ,predkosci = siła zgniotu =lekka pianka przy dużej predkosci zameinia się w tytanowy kafar :D .szejm ju nasa komentuje bo wąłsnie ogaldam dokument na nat geo o tym przypadku .
od skurfiałej aero po tym jak pianka wyjebała dziure w skrzydle przy wejściu w atmo spłonęli jak kurczaki na roznie tylko szybciej od nagłego wzrostu temperatury od podwyższonego tarcia przez speirdolone aero wyrypali jak petarda na sylwestra .
elementarz =nasa is bullshit ;.
The edges weren’t tough enough. The material seems brittle. And the insulation should have been inside the tank housing.
Sad thing was that they couldn’t engineer or figure out a way to insulate that tank without having foam that would break off and hit the shuttle
Should've been held liable for murder. When I was growing up it was stated anything strikes the orbiter that launch was aborted. Even in flight.
Well clearly "murder" would be an inappropriate charge since obviously they had no intention of killing the astronauts.
NASA didn't know until Columbia was in orbit, so an abort wasn't possible. A rescue mission might have been, but they didn't try.
why would they be held liable for murder? that's like calling a contractor a murderer for building a house that collapsed onto its residents after being left unmaintained for 70 years. 60% of the NASA's shuttle launches at this time had insulation foam break off the exact same way without any problems using the exact same method. they had no idea until then that it could gouge through the wings at that size because they had no reason to believe it wouldn't have happened already if that was possible... y'know, right until that point. the crew are also made very aware that this is risky and they could die doing this. at this point there was no established protocol that they were failing to do, nor any intentional mishandling of the shuttle so you couldn't consider it manslaughter OR murder. they wanted and did everything they knew worked at the time to get this shuttle in and out of space. the design just wasn't advanced enough back then.
@@jshepard152 even then a rescue mission wouldn't be worth the risk. as far as i know, the only other shuttle they had was atlantis which wasn't ready for launch and would require multiple security checks to be skipped if they wanted to launch it early. if the columbia shuttle shouldn't have been launched under the conditions it was, then atlantis absolutely should not have because now you're just doing the same exact thing but far riskier with a new crew and a more complicated goal. worst case scenario the resource-intensive shuttles both end up disintegrated with both valuable crews lost and you've completely botched two anticipated shuttle missions in a row; which sounds pretty disheartening.
What amazes me is that such a somber reason for a test that some folks had the gall to laugh, WTH
Everyone has different ways in which they cope with stress and sadness. You don't know the context that made them laugh. You are assuming something derogatory aimed at the crew or their situation. It might be something as simple as after the foam strike bits of it showered down like snow and a comment was made about it snowing in the 80+ degree hot day they were all enduring for these tests in Texas.
why are people laughing in the background?? disgusting..
Some people laughing is just terrible.
I think it’s nervous laughter due to relief. Possibly reflecting how a piece of foam could destroy a super strong panel.
Well, the reason the lead accident investigator is laughing there is all the arrogant A holes at NASA that get people killed laughed at him saying there is ZERO chance a piece of foam could do any damage to the wing. He had to fight hard to get that test done and you could hear the shocked aww sound by all of them in the background. Guess who was right?
They were so proud of themselves. These people think they are so smart. They are repeating what we know already happened. Very frustrating
The majority of people at NASA denied that such a thing was possible. The accident investigation board had to fight tooth and nail for this test.
These people are very smart and yes, very proud of themselves. They finally proved to NASA what they told them from the day after the launch. NASA and other engineers ridiculed these men and tried to discredit them from the very beginning. This test was definitive proof that the foam strike was the direct cause and if NASA hadn't blocked requests for ground based imagery of the orbitor, they would have been able to confirm the damage. A rescue mission with the orbitor Atlantis, could have saved Columbia's crew. Instead, NASA denied the image requests and dismissed any concerns of damage from the engineers. They were smiling after this test as they were finally vindicated from NASA's denial.
@@The_Tr3nch Well said, except for one thing, you make NASA look ignorant while in fact they knew this was a real problem and they still denied it.
@@MonasteryOfSilence Not sure I see it from your point of view, I clearly articulated what NASA did to these men for trying to hold NASA accountable. Of course NASA knew of the problem, that's why all of the imagery requests were denied. Everyone that had a hand in trying to hide the truth should have been fired and charged.
@@The_Tr3nch We are saying the same thing, you are absolutely right.
The space shuttle was wasteful and pointless but gave the appearance of having significance and value. The definition of boondoggle.